Did you know Bobby is the CEO of a failing company and is paid more than the top 10 executives (combined) from the most successful company in his market?

Bobby is overpaid.

 

Bobby is overpaid? Perhaps - again, lets look at the numbers:


Company A makes 2Bil/year in profits ($2,000,000,000), and they need a new CEO.

Albert is a relative uknown, but comes cheap - $200,000/yr. Given his resume, we can assume profits will increase by 1% next year, for an increase of $20,000,000 (20mil).

Cindy is sort of experienced, but more expensive - $2,000,000/yr. With her resume, we might expect profits to increase by 3% next year, for an increase of $60,000,000 (60mil).

Bobby is very experienced, but he comes at a cost - $20,000,000/yr. Under his leadership, we might expect profits to increase by 5% next year, for an increase of $100,000,000 (100mil.)


With Albert we'll make 19.8mil. With Cindy we'll make 58mil. With Bobby we'll make 80mil. Who would you hire?

 

I'm not sure what you took from my post, but it had absolutely nothing to do with what you are saying .

Here's my position... I could care less that the CEO's flew on a private jet. It's what they do. It's how they travel. High profile people fly on private jets for security reasons and time constraint reasons. They are usually busy people whose time is better spent than waiting in a security check point.

With that said I think the Gov't should let the Big 3 crash and burn. In saying that they would not crash and burn. They would file bankruptcy, restructure, get rid of the unions, renegotiate CEO pay, and come out better companies. If we bail them out we will keep bailing them out year after year until we let them fail. I don't want my tax money going to companies with poor business practices because the Gov't is scared about what may happen if they fail.

CEO's at failing companies should not be paid a dime. PERIOD. Hope that clears up my stance for you.

 

Who would negotiate the part I bold faced? I agree with everything you said, but how could that negotiation be handled. The only way I can see that would be a step toward socialism. It is kinda spliting hairs, but is still a small step in that direction.

Am I off base here?

 

By renegotiate CEO pay, I mean for the car comanies to do so; not the gov't. The Big 3 can say, "We're opening up the CEO position for a salary of X. If you would like to stay on as CEO for X dollars you will be considered for the position as well, but your position is not guaranteed."

There are plenty of people who would do a great job as a CEO for way less money.

 

Like I said I know it was spliting hairs.
It just seems Capitalism works great fro a sole proprietership. But Capitalism on public traded companies, just seems a little different. I think caps on the perks are in order.
THey can close a plant and make the company look more valuable. Then they get perks for doing it.
Capitalism requires ethics. Ethics that I feel are slipping away from American companies.

 

If the Big 3 want to survive, bankruptcy is what needs to happen. And for Michigan's sake, the sooner the better. The writing has been on the wall for years. Any loan is just going to give it another year and you'll have the same situation. If the CEO's buckle down like they say they're going to do, I give it 2 more years. Fug 'em, let this state hit rock bottom, so we can start picking ourselves back up.

If they reorganize correctly without unions, alot of those jobs will still be around for about a third less pay. But they'll just be more local competition for them, so may the best person get it. This will help restore the "buy american" / "american made" quality aspect that the Big 3 have always took pride in. That's how I see it anyway.

I'm not saying unions don't work. I'm saying the UAW and the Big 3 don't work.

I agree with Tumba on capping the CEO's perks and obscene bonuses on Publically Traded Companies, and Private one as well I guess... but give them a variable component in their salary like you would any sales rep, and them make truely earn what their worth.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act cleaned up most of the C level corruption, but that's about as close as you will get to any Ethics justice...

 

Like I said before, if time constraints are the issue, they should have flown in a day earlier. If they had other meetings, oh well, prioritize, what is more important, meeting with congress to secure your job in the future or any other piddly thing you had to do?

Oh, and if Bobby makes 20 million a year and is going to make the company 80 mil, when the company hasn't made the 80 mil and is in the red and has to ask for a taxpayer bailout, I say Bobby is way overpaid, hasn't produced his expectations and Bobby either needs to take a severe paycut or be replaced. Right now, Bobby isn't worth crap, that's why they are in congress asking for money.

 

I work for Gulfstream so I don't mind that they flew the jets we make to D.C.
You have to remember, most corporate big wigs don't have time to wait for our outdated air transport system to work to get from place to place. Remember, Time=Money

 

As just one of the other 3,000+ American employees at Dassault Falcon I totally agree.

 

Not a problem, sorry if I sounded like an a$$ earlier. I think the only time the spare travels with the real thing is to hostile/questionable foreign locations. I have personally flown over the only two airstrips capable of landing a 747 (in a 2 hour drive) within minutes of each other and only seen one with Presidential livery. The truth is that no one knows exactly what that aircraft is capable of doing. Boeing pulled out ALL the stops on those two...

 

Here is what I took from your previous post and this one.
High profile people should fly private because of security concerns and time constraints. They are too busy and their time is too valuable to spend waiting at check points. Im also ok with this but...

Your mantra (which by the way I respect) is that nobody gets a free ride. You earn what you get. Everyone must be responsible for their own actions.

The CEO's being discussed actually had no money to waste flying in private jets. Much less to use them to go beg for taxpayer money.
They get paid high dollar salaries for success not excuses.
If they fail (company headed for bankruptcy) they don't deserve what they get paid. If on the way to failure they spend extravagantly they are no better than the poor living beyond their means.
You seem to strongly dislike people who live beyond their means.
Yet you have no problem with failing CEO's wasting company money.
I also dislike people who don't earn what they take from taxpayers rich or poor.

Once again why make excuses for the rich (too busy, too important, too unsecure) because it's a habit (bad when your company is failing) but not for the poor because of ignorance?

 

You summed everything up pretty well. The only thing we seem to disagree on is the private jet part. So rather than the CEO's planning how to save their failing companies (which isn't going to happen anyway, I don't think the CEO's have the solution) they should waste time in a public airport. It was said by one of the CEO's that he had other meeting as well in other cities that day. Without a private jet this is not possible. Personally I think all the CEO's should be gone, but they are not. So until then they will fly private jets around as a matter of security and time management. This is not an excuse for the rich. Why not just have them use AMTRAK rather than fly... that would save a bundle!!

 

Maybe they haven't heard of the new fangled technology called the teleconference.

 

How about they just be honorable and step down and get out of the way.
No that would be...er ummmmmmm economical....and not their type of business model.